Science rediscovers God (but doesn't dare to say it yet)

I like to read a lot, and lately something has caught my attention in the world of philosophy and hard science. For years the message was clear: if you are smart and take science seriously, you are an atheist. The universe is a coincidental machine, matter is dead, and your consciousness is an illusion of your brain.

But that bastion is starting to show cracks.

One of the most interesting figures I've followed recently is Philip Goff, a British professor and philosopher. He is not a flaky guru, but a serious thinker who uses logical arguments to sweep the floor with cold materialism. His thesis? The universe is not empty and dead. Consciousness is not an accidental byproduct, but a fundamental property of all matter.

From chance to purpose

Goff recently made a remarkable turn. In his latest book,  Why? The purpose of the universe, he says goodbye to strict atheism. He looks at the cosmos — at how improbably precisely the laws of nature are tuned for life — and concludes: this cannot be a coincidence. There must be a ‘cosmic purpose’.

It is fascinating to see how close he comes to the truth with this. When I compare his ideas about ‘living matter’ and a universe striving for intelligence with what I believe, I see enormous overlaps. The idea that spirit and matter are inextricably linked is not a new theory for me, but an age-old principle. For those who want to know more about this, I refer to Doctrine and Covenants 29:31-34, where Christ explains that for Him, all things are spiritually created.

The convulsive turn

Yet something is amiss. And you don't only see that with Goff, but with more and more scientists who reach this point. They see the data. They see that the universe seems 'intended'. But taking the step to attribute that purpose to a God? That is apparently still a bridge too far.

You then see an almost convulsive intellectual gymnastics emerge. People invent terms like 'cosmopsychism' or speculate that the universe  itself is a kind of impersonal consciousness that 'tries' to do good things. Everything is pulled out of the hat just to avoid the G-word. It is contradictory: acknowledging intelligent design and purpose, but denying the Designer.

The stumbling block of suffering

With Goff, it's clear where the shoe pinches. He is now 'anti-atheist', but he cannot embrace the Christian God due to one major obstacle: the suffering in the world. His reasoning is classic: 'If there is an almighty and all-good God, why is there so much pain?' Because he has no answer to that, he chooses a middle ground: purpose, but no God.

And right there I think: Philip, you should talk to us sometime.

The answer to that question is, in fact, available. If you understand that God is not a magician who creates suffering for his pleasure, but a Father who lets us grow in a world of laws and free will, it clicks. The realization that matter, intelligence, and laws are eternal — and that God  organizes instead of  conjures — solves the problem Goff is stuck on. Suffering is not proof of God's absence, but a side effect of a universe where real growth and real choices are possible.

Time for intellectual honesty

My point is this: we live in an exciting time. Science is slowly shifting. More and more smart people are discovering that the atheistic narrative of 'everything is meaningless chance' is becoming scientifically untenable.

Faith and science are not enemies. In fact, they need each other to see the whole picture. Scientists like Goff are already halfway up the ladder; they see that something must exist. They only miss that last piece of insight to understand  Who that is.

Science increasingly shows us that there must be a God. It is time we stop pretending that is an unscientific thought.